Experiments on egg discrimination in two North American corvids: further evidence for retention of egg ejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the absence of brood parasitism in North America, black-billed magpies, Pica hudsonia (Sabine, 1822), and yellow-billed magpies, Pica nuttalli (Audubon, 1837), may have retained egg-discrimination behaviour that evolved in Eurasian magpies, Pica pica (L., 1758), in response to parasitism by Old World cuckoos. We further examined this hypothesis by testing the egg-discrimination abilities of black-billed magpies and the American crow, Corvus brachyrhynchos Brehm, 1822, which has no history of brood parasitism. In addition, we tested an alternative hypothesis that black-billed magpies evolved or retained egg discrimination to counter conspecific parasitism by testing their ability to eject foreign conspecific eggs and by using a signal detection model to estimate the level of conspecific parasitism required for ejection to be favoured. Black-billed magpies ejected all non-mimetic eggs and 62% of mimetic eggs. Significantly more mimetic eggs were ejected during the incubation stage than during the laying stage. Magpies ejected significantly more non-mimetic eggs than mimetic eggs overall, but there was no difference in ejection frequency during incubation. American crows ejected 21% of non-mimetic eggs and 8% of mimetic eggs. There was no significant difference in ejection frequency of the two egg types. Black-billed magpies ejected 11% of conspecific eggs and a relatively high level of conspecific parasitism (22%49%) would be required to select for conspecific ejection, which provides little support for conspecific parasitism as a current selection pressure for maintaining egg discrimination. Thus, black-billed magpies appear to have retained egg rejection in the absence of parasitism through speciation from Eurasian magpies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".